Israel & Israel in the Bible

Following the comment below at the Humanitarian Chronicle in my post about the latest Israeli attack on Gaza, I decided to write a post on my thoughts on the understanding of Israel presented in the New Testament:

Frank, all of your approaches at best indicate a lack of awareness of the full counsel of God, and question His character. At worst, you declare God to be a liar.

My response turned into a fairly thorough 4500 word monster… though a thesis could be written on what I was addressing.

I  know it will interest some of you dedicated and die-hard readers, so feel free to check it out:

http://www.humanitarianchronicle.com/2009/01/israel-israel-in-the-bible/

My Pohutukawa

Last year I made a commitment on the air that I would get a Pohutukawa to grow and use as my family’s Christmas tree… I never got around to it. This year I made the same commitment and actually followed through on it, so I am now the proud owner of a beautiful young Pohutukawa.

The photo is of the Pohutukawa on the day of purchase as it rested on my desk.It is accompanied by a lemon tree purchased as a gift for our flatmates. Since they live with us, we too will benefit from its luscious fruit.

The strange person poking his head up in the background is Intern Dan. Intern Dan is a young whipper snapper trying to make his way in radio. I found him sleeping on a park bench in Auckland central early one morning. He was a lonely soul with no place to call home. I decided to give him a break and took him under my wing. He’s nearly ready to fly. (Disclaimer: Whilst it is Intern Dan in the picture, other events in the aforementioned story may be fictional)

I will tend to it, grow it and care for it. It shall be called “my precious”.

Distributism - Distributivism

I am highly indebted to Ropata for a quick link he put on his blog at the end of this post that he wrote a little while ago. By placing that link he pointed me to the discovery of a seat for my own economic thoughts - Distributism.

I am a little embarrassed that I had not discovered it earlier. I have long thought socialism and capitalism to be poor economic models, but am supportive of a free market. The ideal in my mind is a larger spread of the ownership of the means of production through the encouragement of many small businesses and co-operatives. State control through socialism does not represent my ideal and whilst I believe a welfare system is a better idea than unfettered capitalism that centralizes capital into the hands of a few, thus creating larger and larger booms and busts, I still feel there is an element of injustice to it… but in the current market I haven’t been able to formulate a better overarching solution that encapsulated my ideals. Distributism does exactly that.

Distributism is my economic theory of choice as it reflects my ideals… I’m embarrassed because it has been around so long, having been born out of Roman Catholic interpretation of some Papal encyclicals that have addressed economics in the world. Distributism was born from thinkers like G.K Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc. I don’t understand how I’ve lived for so long holding both pure socialism (Communism) and capitalism at arms length and championing a voluntary spread of the means of production in a free market through business models such as co-operatives without discovering Distributism.

From how I’m looking at it, it solves the problem I have always had with most economic theories. Most economic theories deal with ideas at a macro level that ignore the nuances of the micro-level (small communities and individuals). Distributism, as a voluntary movement within a free market, addresses that issue as it encourages an understanding of the value and the dignity of the individual beyond being simply an economic unit in a capitalist system that centralizes the means of production into the hands of a few, thus creating an imbalance between purchasing power and production in a free market, or a socialist system that centralizes the means of production into the hands of the state, thus creating an unjust system that does not duly reward the individual for their efforts.

I believe Distributism represents a way forward in the current economic climate that shows that there are gaping problems in the current system.

To find out more about Distributism - the light in my political and economic tunnel - check out these links.

http://distributist.blogspot.com/2007/08/introduction-to-distributism.html (a great introduction)

http://www.medaille.com/pracdist.htm (A fabulous essay and a must read!)

http://www.distributist.blogspot.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism

http://distributism.blogspot.com/

http://www.justpeace.org/encourdistributism.htm

Impending Job Change

Confucius once said (I’ve always wanted to say that) - “Choose work you love and you will never have to work a day in your life.“

I heard something similar to that when I was younger and have done my best to pursue it. I am somewhat fortunate that my circumstances have allowed me to develop skills and make connections where I have been able to chase such a path.

If people love what they do, they’re more likely to be good at it and sure, whilst any pursuit will have its trials, struggles and challenges, you’re more likely to achieve when you’re passionate about the thing you are doing. Much of my current job has been such a role, but I have always felt that I could go a step further.

In the first half of next year I will get to make a change and truly step into Confucius’ advice. I will be stepping into a role at TEAR Fund as an Education Officer. My job will be to engage public discourse on justice issues and global humanitarian problems via various means such as blogging, public speaking etc etc. There is much that I have learned in my current role and networks that I have developed that will help me in the role immensely.

It is looking like The Humanitarian Chronicle will become a TEAR Fund blog. Expect to see it make a big dent in the New Zealand blog rankings in the next 18 months. I will be pushing it to do extremely well with a much bigger resource behind it and a group of people passionate about using it to serve the cause. In fact, it might be a smart idea to head there now and connect to the RSS feed or the email updates so you’re ahead of the game and able to watch the changes as they happen. Linking to it would be great as well

I am extremely excited. I have had sleepless nights lately because my head is spinning with ideas for the new role. My job will involve doing the things I love to serve the causes I love. It will also allow me the chance to work with some amazing people.

I have a passion for the organisation I will be serving and ultimately the people that organisation serves.

When I think about the up and coming role, I look at Confucius’ quote and whilst I know there will be challenges, struggles and days where I wonder what they heck I am doing, I know that for the most part I will never have to work a day in my life as long as that is my job.

Some Clarifications

I asked Tim Sisarich, head of Focus On the Family New Zealand to get some information for me on the authorship of the letter highlighted in the last post after he expressed doubts about the assertion that it had been written by James Dobson.

It seems that I, following the lead of other media sources, got the original source of the letter wrong. It did come from the political lobby arm of Focus on the Family, Focus on the Family Action, but was not authored by James Dobson.

Focus on the Family Action was founded by James Dobson as a separate legal entity from Focus on the Family and its specific purpose is to act as a lobby group - much like Family First here in New Zealand.

So whilst I humbly recant my assertions towards James Dobson, whilst still holding a view that highly questions his political stances, I still am highly critical of the letter. I still hold to the view that it is steeped in syncretism in relation to faith and politics and I would still assert that it expresses a homophobic tendency.

After hearing some critique of my assertion of homophobia, allow me to clarify what I mean. It has been assumed that when I use the term “homophobia” that I am accusing the writer of the letter of hating homosexuals. The common response to this is that disagreement does not equal hate. The latter assertion is true, but the former assumption is not.

When I speak of homophobia in relation to the letter, I am speaking of a cultural fear, not an individual hate. I am in no position to judge whether or not the writer carries a hate for those who consider themselves homosexual, but I think there is a clear expression of a cultural fear.

By far one of the biggest issues given attention in the letter is activities relating to gay rights and the work of gay lobby groups and what is expressed is a fear that if any concessions are made, that if any ground is given, then the very fabric of society will be undermined and ripped away and that any ability Christians conservatives have to maintain a public voice will be taken away and they will be “persecuted”.

A fear is also expressed that if the right to bear arms is limited that terrorists will have a field day…. but that’s an aside to what I am addressing here.

I believe the fears expressed and directly related to the presidency of Barack Obama are unfounded. Sure, a logical path can be extrapolated to show how some of these things COULD come to pass (some of it bad, but some of it good yet seen as bad) if everything went as stated…. all disliked laws passed and all necessary legislatures and politicians put in place.

Watching any democracy should be clear evidence enough that such fear is unfounded. Not all laws pass, not all people get the positions they want and some of these great so called “evils” that are feared are often misunderstood or simply end up being a storm in a teacup that don’t destroy our society.

For example, New Zealand has Civil Unions. Within that, alongside heterosexual couples who may not wish to marry, we have given state recognition to same sex couples who decide to enter a legal union. For all the vocal opposition that occurred to this, strong families are still strong and weak families are still weak - little has changed in the household of the average New Zealand family because of it.

But allow me to state it to be clear - in relation to this letter, when I refer to homophobia, I am not talking about hate, I am talking about cultural fear. I think the letter pointed to clearly expresses this.

Allow me to also state that I uphold and respect the rights in place for the letter to be written.

James Dobson Went off the Deep End

Before we get into this, allow me to express that I am supportive of some of what Focus on the Family is about. I am supportive of Focus on the Family’s support for families. My good friend Tim Sisarich heads up FOTF NZ and I have him on my radio show weekly to talk about great stuff.

What I am not supportive of is the overt political stance of James Dobson in the U.S and the way he has allowed his representation of Christ in politics to be completely overshadowed by his own political world-view. Now he’s gone off the deep end.

The following shows a man who has been in his position for far too long and has sold himself to the Republican Party - to use biblical language, he has prostituted himself to a political institution. He has relegated his global voice to being a tool to be manipulated by a political faction and he is openly feeding the ignorant fears of people on that side of the political divide.

In the following letter that he wrote prior to the election of Obama I believe he expresses true homophobia, puts forward the idea that owning a gun is almost a God given right and acts as if negotiation and the diplomacy of friendship are a great evil. In short, he has reached the height of syncretism where he assumes to the enth degree that his political views are also God’s views. All reason has flown out the window in the following letter he wrote prior to the November 4 election in the U.S. He wrote it as a future prediction for 2012. It is written as if it is 2012:

http://focusfamaction.edgeboss.net/download/focusfamaction/pdfs/10-22-08_2012letter.pdf

I’m sure that at a personal level James Dobson is a very nice, likeable man. But that is rediculous.

The response to this from Jimmy Spencer at Neue Ministry is to be commended. It is both measured and restrained.

I especially liked this:

This letter is a direct reflection of James Dobson’s worldview… a worldview many assume reflects the heart of Jesus. That puts the proverbial ball into my wheelhouse.

I think a lot more could be said in response to Mr Dobson and I think the man needs to vacate his position and let FOTF get back to being a grass roots organisation actually supporting families.

Update: I was sent a link to Jim Wallis’ response to this and it is great:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-wallis/james-dobsons-letter-from_b_139253.html

Why Goff, King and Cunliffe are Good for Labour

It is interesting reading the various views on the new leadership of the Labour Party - largely a team I was hoping for. I have been following the discussion at the Standard and Kiwiblog since they largely represent the two sides of the political fence.

There seem to be a number of Labour Party supporters who are not happy with the decision because they see the new team as representing the “right-wing” of the party and think they will halt the social reforms and move the party closer to the center. On the other side of the political divide, National Party supporters seem to view Phil Goff and Annette King as weak and think that in terms of debating, the National Party leadership will have no problem running rings around them. I would like to address both objections.

Firstly, to the socially liberal factions of the Labour Party. The last nine years have been a good run for this part of the Labour Party. The social reforms have come thick and fast. What they don’t seem to realize though is the number of people who have felt disconnected to that side of the house because of those reforms. That said, you may not have noticed that a large chunk of people swung away from Labour and towards National. Surely you must be asking why? The Standard asserts that Labour is a democratic party where the leadership does not abandon the ambitions of the rank and file. What this fails to take into account is the number of traditional Labour voters who crossed the house because the rank and file were largely being ignored while a socially liberal faction silenced the voices of the socially conservative. While the socially liberal left were screaming about fundamentalists in order to ostracise those who didn’t support their views, they were pushing away some of Labours traditional support - their very own political allies. It backfired.

Traditionally, Labour has had a strong Christian following with some denominations almost wedded to the party. Such people are largely socially conservative. Their families generally have a strong record of voting Labour. Over the last nine years social conservatives who have identified with the left have lost their voice on that side of the house and been thrown out into the political wilderness as social reform has rolled through with seemingly no debate on that side of the house. They have felt powerless to stop it. No-one seems to have been a voice representing them in what has been their political home for a long time. Whilst I can largely argue both sides of the coin on the reforms that this constituency have largely felt disenfranchised by, I can understand why they have felt pushed away by the left side of the house.

To the social liberals who may not be happy with this - for the Labour Party to be truly democratic, it needs to allow for voices from all sides within its ranks. For a leadership to be truly great it needs to be able to create something cohesive out of these differing voices while giving each a sense of validity.

For the social conservatives this has not been the case. In order to voice their opposition, which they have every right to do in a democracy, the only way they could get their voice heard was to “cross the house” so to speak because nobody on the left seemed to be listening to or representing them. In so doing, many social conservatives who have traditionally identified with Labour swung towards National - often with little thought about whether National was actually much better on this front.

Goff, King and Cunliffe represent a change in this area. Let’s face it, social liberals are not going to swing away from the left anytime soon, but Labour does need to pull back that support that it lost - the support that has swung to the other side of the house. The only way it can do that is by giving the chunk that swung away from them a voice within their own ranks again. They need to be able to tell social conservatives that there is a place for them to be heard on that side of the house again. Goff, King and Cunliffe represent a shift towards the social center and breaks being put on the runaway train of social reform.

Key and English largely represent two sides of the area of social policy. One would be seen as more liberal while the other largely conservative. By having such representation they open the door to many sides of the social divide. Labour achieved the same thing today, thus it has opened the door to bring back those who swung away from it, those who have felt politically homeless for at least two terms now.

To the National supporters who would deride the new leadership as a team who may not be able to foot it in the debating chamber. May I sincerely disagree? Phil Goff has largely stayed out of the limelight over the last term. I would argue that he has done so deliberately - but after watching plenty of parliamentary TV, I would gladly assert that he is an intelligent, able and debate hardened politician and so is Annette King. You can’t be in politics at the level they have been for so long and not be able to handle yourself. I have no doubt that John Key and Bill English are in for a rough ride with these able politicians at the helm of the Labour Party.

I would also caution National not to take social conservatives who swung towards them for granted. Labour may very well now have the leadership in place that can give voice to both social conservatives and social liberals whilst appealing to the worker in the way Labour traditionally has.

The next three years will be very interesting. Let the showdown begin.

Labour’s New Leadership

It is confirmed. Phil Goff is now the leader of the Labour Party with Annette King as deputy and David Cunliffe as finance spokesman. I am very happy. The result I wanted out of the 2008 election has now come to pass.

Omar Bin Laden

Osama bin Laden’s son asks: ‘What’s the weather like in NZ?’ - NZ Herald

Omar bin Laden and his wife wish to seek political asylum in New Zealand because his pacifist views - “peace through dialogue” - put him in danger in the Middle East where he is a target for fundamentalists and extremists.

Let him in I say. Winston is out, so it’s not like he could stop it.

Mrs bin Laden said the couple wanted to seek asylum in New Zealand because it was known for its democratic values and was a fair country.

“It’s an amazing country with an amazing history. I believe they have a strong human rights stance and humanitarian stance,”

I Can Only Laugh

I am currently having to deal with an accusation that I am too pro National and would have cost Labour some votes in the election… I can only laugh.